Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.09 seconds)
Promoshirt Sm Sa. vs Armasuisse And Anr. on 6 September, 2023 cites

State Of Orissa & Ors vs Md. Illiyas on 22 November, 2005

71. With reference to the precedential value of decisions, in State of Orissa v. Mohd. Illiyas [(2006) 1 SCC 275 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 122] this Court observed: (SCC p. 282, para 12) "12. ... According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates: (i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a LPA 136/2023 & LPA 137/2023 Page 112 of 121 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEHA Signing Date:06.09.2023 16:50:56 decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 539 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Islamic Academy Of Education And ... vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 14 August, 2003

In this regard, in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka [(2003) 6 SCC 697] , this Court made the following observations: (SCC p. 719, para 2) "2. ... The ratio decidendi of a judgment has to be found out only on reading the entire judgment. In fact, the ratio of the judgment is what is set out in the judgment itself. The answer to the question would necessarily have to be read in the context of what is set out in the judgment and not in isolation. In case of any doubt as regards any observations, reasons and principles, the other part of the judgment has to be looked into. By reading a line here and there from the judgment, one cannot find out the entire ratio decidendi of the judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 335 - Full Document

Government Of Karnataka & Ors vs Smt. Gowramma And Ors on 14 December, 2007

"64. The court should not place reliance upon a judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits in with a fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analysing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. A judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference to the precedential value of a decision. A judgment of the court is not to be read as a statute, as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper. (Vide MCD v. Gurnam Kaur [(1989) 1 SCC 101 : AIR 1989 SC 38] , Govt. of Karnataka v. Gowramma [(2007) 13 SCC 482 : AIR 2008 SC 863] and State of Haryana v. Dharam Singh [(2009) 4 SCC 340 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 112] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 85 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Haryana & Anr vs Dharam Singh & Ors on 6 February, 2009

"64. The court should not place reliance upon a judgment without discussing how the factual situation fits in with a fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed, as it has to be ascertained by analysing all the material facts and the issues involved in the case and argued on both sides. A judgment may not be followed in a given case if it has some distinguishing features. A little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference to the precedential value of a decision. A judgment of the court is not to be read as a statute, as it is to be remembered that judicial utterances have been made in setting of the facts of a particular case. One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between the conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance upon a decision is not proper. (Vide MCD v. Gurnam Kaur [(1989) 1 SCC 101 : AIR 1989 SC 38] , Govt. of Karnataka v. Gowramma [(2007) 13 SCC 482 : AIR 2008 SC 863] and State of Haryana v. Dharam Singh [(2009) 4 SCC 340 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 112] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 66 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1